I'd only like we (all people which want to) discuss about how to
cooperate, where to put things, dependencies, licencies problem (if
any), maintainers questions, etc... There's a 2 threads about part of
this: "CVS hosting issues (was: Re: Frameworks integration)" and
"Frameworks integration".

OK.

If the issue of copyright assignment is not important for you, I
suggest that we use a decentralized approach first. The goal isn't
necessarily the setup of a common project, there still can be SOPE and
gnustep-web projects which are just different forks of the same code
basis. The primary goal is to share code, also sharing projects is two
steps further and requires much more discussion.

Though having a shared project of course gives additional benefits.

Since gnustep-web is like SOPE LGPL, we should not have any license
issues?

Your proposition is only 7 days old and I don't think all GNUstep
contributors have given their opinion.
Iknow you've developped a lot of things which are interesting but I
think
we can save time if we think a little about all this before doing
things.

Yes, indeed I think we should put that to the rest for now to give
people time to look into each others sources. Maybe we should wait some
months and then discuss that again.

Few days is nothing on a ten years old project, IMHO.

Of course, we have no hurry in any way. This decision has time (and
needs time for implementation anyway).

About "keeping to your codebase whatever?": personnaly, one think I
don't want is to invest time studying SOPE or starting a merge and
after that, more or less quickly, find that there's a big problem

Well, as I mentioned cooperation means that both parties actually need
to put work in something to reach a common goal. If you don't want to
invest work, we are stuck.

(organisation,

irrelevant for sharing code

license,

Obvious

project orientation,

irrelevant for sharing code

maintainer choices

irrelevant for sharing code

or god knows what).

Hm? ;-)

You may say it is LGPL projects so one can fork if he doesn't agree
on something but, _in this kind of situation_, I think I'd prefer to
keep on working like before, just to avoid spending time and because
I know better gsxml, gsweb stuff than Slyrix stuff.

This conflicts with your previous statement that you are interested in
cooperation. A joint effort will imply more work in the short term, but
more functionality/maturity in the midterm and much less work in the
long term.

This was my proposal.

I don't say this will append and I hope not, of course; I don't say
there will be problems; I don't say there will be a fork;I don't say I
won't work to study SOPE or merge. I'm only carefull.

A fork is not necessarily bad if there are two different goals. This
doesn't imply that no code can be shared.

As an example, we use a stable fork of gstep-make for a long time in
OGo packaging because API and directory setup stability is extremely
important in our view, while the head/GNUstep version of gstep-make
focused on enhancements and improvements even if this breaks
compatibility between minor revisions.

So our fork focuses on different goal, yet shares code with gstep-make.